Fair and Balanced on Fox?

When Bill O'Reilly says Fox News is not conservative, he may have in mind John Gibson, who came from MSNBC. He has his own Fox show, "Big Story," but recently filled in for O'Reilly and treated conservative professor and noted author David Lowenthal in an unfair and unbalanced way. The issue was the so-called Ten Commandments monument that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore refused to move from his courthouse.

I say "so-called" because one of the noteworthy omissions from many stories about the case is that the monument also bears the phrase, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," from the Declaration of Independence; our National Motto, "In God We Trust"; the "One Nation Under God" reference from the Pledge of Allegiance; and "So help me God" from the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established a federal court system and describes the oath of office taken by Supreme Court Justices. The oath refers to upholding the constitution of the United States and ends with those words seeking God's help.

The Constitution is the key to the case. Gibson said Moore was a rabble-rouser defying higher court rulings. But Lowenthal noted that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Alabama in this kind of matter. "How can you defend what he's doing?" Gibson thundered. "The defiance of judicial orders is undermining the authority of his very position." Lowenthal replied that, "You're assuming the thing to be contested. Which is that the federal judiciary has jurisdiction over this matter." Gibson interrupted Lowenthal at about that point to go to his other guest, a liberal professor who agreed entirely with Gibson.

Lowenthal could have enlightened Gibson and the Fox audience. A professor emeritus of political science at Boston College, his book, Present Dangers (Spence Publishing Company), is an excellent examination of First Amendment issues. He virtually pleaded for the opportunity to make his case. "If you would let me simply explain..." Lowenthal told Gibson. "It's a simple basic point. Must Alabama bow down to the federal judiciary? Every justice and every federal employee is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution."

Gibson claimed to really be on Moore's side and that he believed the Constitution allowed such a monument. Yet he didn't want to understand why their ordered removal was the unlawful and unconstitutional act.

In an interview, Lowenthal explained that, contrary to Gibson's claim, it isn't Moore who is defying the law, it is the federal court. Lowenthal compared Moore's position to a soldier who receives an illegal order and is bound by his oath to disobey it. The second point, which Lowenthal was not allowed to make on the show, is that the First Amendment prohibition against establishing religion was designed by the founders to make sure that Congress didn't establish a national religion or church like they have in England. He said it has nothing to do with states displaying the Ten Commandments, and any ruling to the contrary employs "fancy footwork" rather than relying on the actual text of the Constitution. Lowenthal says that when the First Amendment was ratified about half the states had their own official churches or religion.

Lowenthal said he had never thought Gibson was going to treat him in such an insulting manner. "If I had thought he was going to do anything like that, I just wouldn't have appeared," he said.

If a federal judge has the jurisdiction and authority to order that monument out of the Alabama courthouse, consider what might happen to the Supreme Court chamber in Pennsylvania, a state founded by William Penn as a haven of religious freedom. Visitors can see a beautiful religious mural in the courtroom of its Supreme Court that shows Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, and they are listed. Another shows Jesus giving the Beatitudes, and they are listed as well. Other murals depict William Blackstone and his commentaries.

It is possible that a federal judge could order Pennsylvania to rip down those murals, based on the fiction that the U.S. Constitution somehow prohibits their display. But it should be obvious to John Gibson and any American with an understanding of the Constitution and U.S. history that such an order would be unlawful and unconstitutional on its face and should be resisted.

If it isn't obvious to Gibson, he should invite Professor Lowenthal on his "Big Story" show to explain it. Gibson owes Lowenthal a "fair and balanced" opportunity to explain the facts, the law and the Constitution. This time, Mr. Gibson, listen and learn.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Cliff at antiun@earthlink.net .

Legislation Should Be Passed Before Fall Recess

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) today called on the House Republican leadership to act to protect the public display of the Ten Commandments. The Congressman, and several colleagues, held a press conference on the matter today in Washington, DC. Earlier this session, the Alabama Congressman introduced the Ten Commandments Defense Act (HR 2045) in the United States House of Representatives. The bill is designed to protect the authority of individual States to display the Ten Commandments in public places. The basis of this legislation is the Tenth Amendment, which states that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This legislation also ensures the freedom of religious expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The bill in no way mandates that the Ten Commandments be displayed at any time, any place or in any state. It does not compel the states to display the Ten Commandments in any way.

"We have heard from the judges, now it is time that we hear from the people on this issue," said Congressman Aderholt. "The federal courts should not be telling a state that there is no room for the public display of the Ten Commandments, the founding fathers did not want the establishment of a religion. However, the single display of the Ten Commandments can in no way be considered establishing a religion." Congressman Aderholt added that now, more than ever, Congress must set the record straight as to the public display of the Ten Commandments.

"Over the past fifty years, we have seen the courts attempts to censor anything that has to do with religion. Discrimination against religion under the guise of separation of church and state must end.

"The Ten Commandments is a part of the heritage and history of our nation. They represent the values that form the basis of so much of our legal system here in America," said Congressman Aderholt. "No one can deny the fact that the founding fathers used the Ten Commandments as foundations for our government."Congressman Aderholt Calls on House Leadership to Act on Ten Commandments Legislation

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]. The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech

In July, I offered an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prevent funds from being used to enforce the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling ordering the removal of a monument at the Alabama Supreme Court building that depicts the Ten Commandments. My amendment passed the House with the bipartisan support of 260 members.

A few editorial pages, as well as some constitutional "scholars," have criticized my amendment, calling it an attack on "the independence" of federal judges or claiming that we "cannot run a country" unless courts have the final say on the Constitution.

No one, however, has been able to dispute the fact that Congress can prevent funding of an unconstitutional decision rendered by a federal court. They can't, because the Constitution says we can.

In fact, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court's very existence depends on Congress. Articles 1 and 3 of the Constitution grant Congress the power to "ordain and establish" inferior courts.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, remove judges, set pay, even determine where the courts meet. The courts are completely dependent on the other branches for everything from their pay to the enforcement of their decisions.

Don't take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton, ardent champion of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 78: "The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse . . . and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Our Founders designed a government with three branches, each with a distinctive role. They did not envision an oligarchy of unelected and unaccountable masters.

The First Amendment, designed to limit federal power, says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Justice Roy Moore is not the U.S. Congress; he has not passed a law establishing a national religion and he has not in any way violated the U.S. Constitution.

Employing one of the checks provided by the Constitution, the House determined it would not provide funds for the U.S. Marshals Service to carry out a blatantly unconstitutional federal court order. If the people disagree with my amendment then many of the 260 members who voted for it will not be in Congress following the next election. The power lies with the people -- truly the final arbiters of the Constitution. CONSTITUTION GIVES POWER TO CONGRESS OVER COURTS

While it's true that "so help me God" is contained in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the writer shows himself to be less than intellectually honest, since the phrase is referred to entirely out of context. The VERY NEXT PHRASE in the Act states "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."

Also, "so help me God" is clearly absent in the Presidential oath as stated in the Constitution. Presidents have indeed added the phrase, but it is merely ceremonial, and not what is instructed in Article II of the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In addition, Article VI of the Constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath OR AFFIRMATION, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (emphasis added.)

And it's worth noting what the Bible says about taking oaths:

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." -- Matthew 5: 33-37

In the Federal Government, in order for an official to take office, he or she must first take the oath of office. The official reciting the oath swears an allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

The Constitution only specifies an oath of office for the President; however, Article VI of the Constitution states that other officials, including members of Congress, "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution."

The following includes oath information for high ranking officials from each of the three branches of Government.

President of the United States (Executive Branch)

According to the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, a President's term of office begins at 12:00 p.m. (noon) on January 20th of the year following an election. In order to assume his/her duties, the President-elect must recite the Oath of Office. The Oath is administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The President-elect places his hand on the Bible, raises his right hand, and takes the Oath as directed by the Chief Justice. The Oath, as stated in Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Vice President of the United States (Executive Branch)

The Vice President also takes an oath of office. Until 1933, the Vice President took the oath of office in the Senate. Today, both the President and Vice President are inaugurated in the same ceremony. The Vice President's oath is administered immediately before the President's. The Vice President's oath may be administered by the retiring vice president, by a member of Congress, or by some other government official, such as a justice of the Supreme Court. The Vice President's oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Members of Congress (Legislative Branch)

At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate takes an oath of office. The Speaker of the House will direct the Members to rise and the oath is administered. The original oath was as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

The oath was revised during the Civil War, when members of Congress were concerned about traitors. The current oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Supreme Court Justices (Judicial Branch)

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''Ben's Guide (3-5): Songs and Oaths - The Oath of Office

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.